In his perpetually adorable way, everyone's favourite mullethead Twatsy quietly follows your humble scribe around the bloggysphere, leaving little Twatsy-sized droppings wherever he goes. Oh, look -- here's Twatsy, commenting on something I linked to recently and playing scientist:
Yes, you do find weaknesses in a theory. A weakness in a theory is any related question that it can't answer.
For example, evolution is a scientifically decisive answer to the question of how life developed. However, it doesn't decisively or scientifically answer the question of where life came from in the first place.
That's a weakness of the theory. It would be wrong to teach evolution in a classroom as if it answers this question. It doesn't.
Generally, any good scientific theory has some weaknesses. That's where criticisms tend to originate from.
I could comment, but I'll let my buddy Matt do the heavy lifting here:
Go back to your undergrad sociology texts, Twats. We grown-ups will handle the real science, thanks.
UM ... TWATSY? I'm thinking that someone who still hasn't figured out the difference between triangles and not-triangles really shouldn't be lecturing the rest of us on the methodology of science. You're just going to hurt yourself.
I've noted that the theory of natural selection also fails to provide conclusive proof of Fermat's theorem, and is therefore obviously invalid.
Whereas the belief that an old man with a long white beard sat up on a cloud and created life by snapping his fingers has no weaknesses whatsoever, and therefore, no valid criticisms.
"My buddy Matt... eh?
FCS. wv = unwed.
I am so not joking.
It behooves an honest educator to address both sides of the issue.
Oh dear. ID is a binary opposite to evolutionary theory? It has to be an either/or? Is Patrick Ross a natural scientist? Is he a sociologist, because if he is the former, he might have a much more nuanced understanding of scientific method than he demonstrates. If he was the latter, he wouldn't be prattling on about scientific method, but instead be asking questions about why ID is gaining traction among certain groups, and how it has come to be constructed as some sort of viable alternative to evolution, perhaps drawing on theories around social movements, frame construction, identity, culture, etc, etc, etc. If he is a social scientist (economists notwithstanding), he would understand that the scientific method (esp. the aspects of experimentation, repeatability and tendency to universalise) as used in the natural sciences is of very limited utility when dealing with self-aware human agents inhabiting unimaginably complex and therefore infinitely context-rich social worlds, requiring very different methodologies. Maybe he'd even turn the analysis on himself and start pondering why he thinks ID ought to taught as an alternative to evolution?
Or he could just go back to what he does well.
"Maybe he'd even turn the analysis on himself"
and maybe monkeys will fly outta madonna's butt.
That too I suppose.
I wonder if he's that obnoxious in his classes.
he's that obnoxious in his sleep.
boris, he makes ample use of the false choices fallacy: if you can't explain,everything, it was god who did it!
If he was the latter, he wouldn't be prattling on about scientific method, but instead be asking questions about why ID is gaining traction among certain groups, and how it has come to be constructed as some sort of viable alternative to evolution, perhaps drawing on theories around social movements, frame construction, identity, culture, etc, etc, etc.
Twatsy will address those questions...next time.
Post a Comment